4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Trostyanets.
5.  On 8 September 2000 a security officer of the applicant’s former employer, a private company, drew up a report in which he stated that in the course of the applicant’s work on 7 September 2000 she had stolen thirty-five labels, the total value of which was 0.42 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1]. These labels were found in the applicant’s possession when she was leaving the company’s premises. The applicant acquainted herself with the report and explained to the company administration that she had not had any intention of using the labels, but had been going to throw them away.
6.  On the same day the report was submitted to the Trostyanets Court with a request that the applicant be found guilty of having committed an administrative offence within the meaning of Article 51 § 1 of the Code on Administrative Offences.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to provide her with free legal assistance.
8.  Between 10 September and 1 November 2000 the applicant could not appear before the court as she was undergoing inpatient examinations and treatment in several medical institutions; she informed the court of this.
9.  Between 3 and 22 November 2000 the applicant’s six-year-old grandson was undergoing specialised treatment in the Okhtyrka Town Clinic for Skin and Venereal Diseases, to which there was restricted public access. The applicant was staying with him in the clinic in view of his young age.
10.  On 6 November 2000 the judge of the Trostyanets Court who was dealing with the applicant’s case came to the clinic and informed the applicant that he was going to hold a hearing in the room where she was staying with her grandson. All other patients were asked to leave the room. The applicant objected to the holding of the hearing in the room at the clinic. She also requested the judge to withdraw from the case. Her objection and request were dismissed and she refused to participate in the hearing, but remained in the room. The hearing was held in the presence of a lawyer appointed by the judge to defend the applicant. There were also four witnesses heard in person, all of whom were employees of the company. No other persons were allowed to enter the room.
11.  On the same day the court found the applicant guilty of petty theft and imposed a fine amounting to UAH 51[2]. In its resolution the court explained that the hearing had been held in the clinic because of the applicant’s repeated failure to appear before it.
12.  The applicant lodged requests for supervisory proceedings with various authorities, including prosecutors and courts, claiming, inter alia, that the proceedings before the Trostyanets Court had not been public and that she had not been able to exercise her rights to defence, or to present evidence, and other procedural rights. According to the applicant, she was not informed about the hearing in advance and she did not consent to be represented by the court-appointed lawyer, as the latter had allegedly represented the company in other proceedings to which she had been a party.
13.  On 3 April 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Sumy Region lodged a request with the Sumy Court for supervisory review (protest) of the applicant’s case. The prosecutor submitted that the Trostyanets Court had wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and had misapplied domestic law. The prosecutor also alleged that because the hearing had been held in the clinic the applicant had not been able to exercise her procedural rights.
14.  On 9 April 2001 the President of the Sumy Court rejected the protest. As to the fact that the Trostyanets Court had held a hearing in the clinic, the President of the Regional Court found that the applicant’s procedural rights had not been violated, since during that hearing she had been represented by a lawyer and she had not informed the court of any intention to submit evidence or to question witnesses.
15.  On 18 June 2001 the President of the Supreme Court reviewed the case and, relying on Articles 293 and 294 of the Code on Administrative Offences of 1984, partially changed the resolution of 6 November 2000. While upholding the first-instance court’s finding that the applicant was guilty of the offence with which she had been charged, the President found that:
“... the first-instance court had not taken into due account the requirements of Articles 33 and 34 [of the Code on Administrative Offences of 1984], in particular [it had failed to take into due account] the small value of the stolen objects ... the offender’s age, the actual absence of harm to the company, and that Ms Luchaninova was being brought to criminal liability for the first time.
In these circumstances, and because the offence was not a serious one, Ms Luchaninova should not be fined, but verbally reprimanded [for the offence]...”
16.   No hearing was held either before the Sumy Court or the Supreme Court. Their decisions were based on an examination of the material from the case file and contained no reference to the applicant’s submissions in her appeals.
17.  On 11 January 2001 the applicant was dismissed from her position of packer on the ground that she had stolen the company’s property.
18.  The applicant instituted court proceedings challenging her dismissal and seeking compensation. The civil courts, relying on the resolution of 6 November 2000 by which the applicant had been found guilty of theft of the company’s property, rejected her claims as unsubstantiated. The final decision in these proceedings was taken by the Supreme Court on 25 February 2003.